Molarity

Micro-Brands discussed here
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10165
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by Hawk » August 22nd 2013, 9:30am

I looked at one model on their web site. I found two things troubling.

The wording "super luminous" rings my skeptic bell. If it was super luminova I presume they would say so. My inference is that it's some mystery Chinese lume that may or may not work.

Of greater concern to me, and possibly anyone who didn't sleep through high school chemistry is "mineral glass / sapphire coated". Last I knew such an exercise was at the crossroads of "pointless" and "improbable". Sapphire is crystalline, mineral glass is amorphous. Real sapphire has gotten cheap enough that there's little point in omitting it unless one is chasing nickels. But with terms like "Krysterna" and "Flame Fusion" already taken folks like Renato and apparently this guy have resorted to less imaginative bullshit terms to describe "glass".

Given what I believe to be a high probability that the guy has already lied twice about his product causes my skeptic muscle to twitch and I can't spend money when it's twitching.
Image
User avatar
conjurer
ASSHAT & Master of Time
Posts: 31773
Joined: July 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by conjurer » August 22nd 2013, 9:41am

Like Hawk, I found the site to be amateurish, in a Davis After Dark sort of way. I also wouldn't order from a site that doesn't show the actual watch, but instead just computer renderings.

Even the renderings look like shit, anyway.
I find tv watches to be like the guys who raise their truck you need a fricken ladder to get in. It’s a attempt to look cool... that’s all.

--Hawkeye
User avatar
jaw
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 5155
Joined: July 22nd 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by jaw » August 22nd 2013, 8:22pm

jonnybardo wrote:
jaw wrote:Junk


That seems quite over-stated. A watch doesn't have to be a Patek Philippe to not be considered "junk."


Hardly overstated IMO and never said that.
Bought enough junk to know it when I see it.
I own many watches, none of which are PP.
Besides, you asked.
User avatar
conjurer
ASSHAT & Master of Time
Posts: 31773
Joined: July 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by conjurer » August 22nd 2013, 8:24pm

Wasn't Molarity the guy who was always trying to fuck up Sherlock Holmes?
I find tv watches to be like the guys who raise their truck you need a fricken ladder to get in. It’s a attempt to look cool... that’s all.

--Hawkeye
CA Crew
Senior Member
Posts: 578
Joined: September 8th 2010, 10:00pm

Re: Molarity

Post by CA Crew » August 22nd 2013, 8:59pm

They lose major points for the name: molars are teeth that grind food.
jonnybardo
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 631
Joined: January 19th 2013, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by jonnybardo » August 22nd 2013, 9:35pm

jason_recliner wrote:
jonnybardo wrote:
jaw wrote:Junk


A watch doesn't have to be a Patek Philippe to not be considered "junk."


Very true. My humble Seiko 5 is definitely not junk. This molarity watch most certainly is.


What makes the Molarity junk and the Seiko 5 not?
hcharles
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 2579
Joined: March 4th 2012, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 1081120685253371
Location: Snake River Valley
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by hcharles » August 22nd 2013, 9:50pm

Well Seiko has been making watches since 1881, and has a number of collectors, and fine watches. Molarity has neither.
Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine. Abraham lincoln
User avatar
jason_recliner
ASSHAT
Posts: 7293
Joined: September 17th 2011, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by jason_recliner » August 22nd 2013, 10:05pm

jonnybardo wrote:
jason_recliner wrote:
jonnybardo wrote:
jaw wrote:Junk


A watch doesn't have to be a Patek Philippe to not be considered "junk."


Very true. My humble Seiko 5 is definitely not junk. This molarity watch most certainly is.


What makes the Molarity junk and the Seiko 5 not?


Integrity.
Copyright Reclinervision 2020 Productions. All rights reserved.

If it thinks, it stinks
hcharles
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 2579
Joined: March 4th 2012, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 1081120685253371
Location: Snake River Valley
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by hcharles » August 22nd 2013, 10:19pm

You are the who brought it up. Go ahead and buy the watch. No one is going to stop you. :horse:
Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine. Abraham lincoln
User avatar
TemerityB
ASSHAT
Posts: 16869
Joined: June 12th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by TemerityB » August 22nd 2013, 10:36pm

I may not know Molarity, but I know junk. I mean, at 50 paces.
WatchGeeks will go down in watch forum history as the worst watch related site that existed. Trolls, threats, bannings, and owners and sponsors talking out of their collective asses to fleece people out of hard earned money. - Koimaster
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10165
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by Hawk » August 23rd 2013, 7:33am

jonnybardo wrote:Lack of history and quantity of collectors is not reason enough to call it "junk."

I don't have the background of the WISs so I rely on odds, probabilities and percentages.

My system is being constantly revised and fine tuned but as it stands, knowing nothing about a watch, the following are assigned as probabilities of junk:

1. Fantasy crystal: 50%. An additional 15% awarded for naming conventions derived from the Star Trek universe. Molarity gets a straight 50%.

2. Mystery lume: 25%. A 5% bonus is awarded for attempting to confuse the reader by making it sound like a trademarked name. Molarity gets 30%.

It's not that fantasy crystal is twice as likely as mystery lume to indicate "junk". Rather I simply reduce each succeeding instance of marketing bullshit to a maximum of 50% of the previous score. Thus marketing bullshit can never get the score to 100%.

Therefore, a third offense - say, something like "surgical grade" 316L would be 13%. However Molarity didn't go down the "surgical grade" road hence 0% on that one.
Onward:

3. Discounted MSRP on manufacturer's site: 10%. Molarity gets 5% (discount wasn't outlandish).

4. "Dancing Bears" website: 5% (invicter's retina-searing yellow eyesore would get a 15%)

5. Credit for avoiding bullshit references to "Swiss inspiration / design / etc." Molarity: -10% (Stuhrling's site holds the record for this at 14 mentions of "Swiss" with zero references of "Chinese").

Final score: 80% likelihood of being junk, overpriced or both. And that's with never seeing one in the flesh.

Naturally, someone has to go first in our little community and report back. If you're volunteering I'll read your review with an open mind.

Molarity does include a broken link to a Watchfreeks review. One could probably find it with some effort. If there's any interest I'll outline my "weighting system for whether reviews from a particular source can be trusted" at another time. Hint: getting a free watch kicks it off with a 90%.
Image
User avatar
conjurer
ASSHAT & Master of Time
Posts: 31773
Joined: July 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by conjurer » August 23rd 2013, 11:00am

Hawk wrote:
jonnybardo wrote:Lack of history and quantity of collectors is not reason enough to call it "junk."

I don't have the background of the WISs so I rely on odds, probabilities and percentages.

My system is being constantly revised and fine tuned but as it stands, knowing nothing about a watch, the following are assigned as probabilities of junk:

1. Fantasy crystal: 50%. An additional 15% awarded for naming conventions derived from the Star Trek universe. Molarity gets a straight 50%.

2. Mystery lume: 25%. A 5% bonus is awarded for attempting to confuse the reader by making it sound like a trademarked name. Molarity gets 30%.

It's not that fantasy crystal is twice as likely as mystery lume to indicate "junk". Rather I simply reduce each succeeding instance of marketing bullshit to a maximum of 50% of the previous score. Thus marketing bullshit can never get the score to 100%.

Therefore, a third offense - say, something like "surgical grade" 316L would be 13%. However Molarity didn't go down the "surgical grade" road hence 0% on that one.
Onward:

3. Discounted MSRP on manufacturer's site: 10%. Molarity gets 5% (discount wasn't outlandish).

4. "Dancing Bears" website: 5% (invicter's retina-searing yellow eyesore would get a 15%)

5. Credit for avoiding bullshit references to "Swiss inspiration / design / etc." Molarity: -10% (Stuhrling's site holds the record for this at 14 mentions of "Swiss" with zero references of "Chinese").

Final score: 80% likelihood of being junk, overpriced or both. And that's with never seeing one in the flesh.

Naturally, someone has to go first in our little community and report back. If you're volunteering I'll read your review with an open mind.

Molarity does include a broken link to a Watchfreeks review. One could probably find it with some effort. If there's any interest I'll outline my "weighting system for whether reviews from a particular source can be trusted" at another time. Hint: getting a free watch kicks it off with a 90%.


Goddamn, Hawk, you are one smart fuck. I'm glad that you use your outsized brain only for WIS good, instead of WIS evil.
I find tv watches to be like the guys who raise their truck you need a fricken ladder to get in. It’s a attempt to look cool... that’s all.

--Hawkeye
jonnybardo
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 631
Joined: January 19th 2013, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by jonnybardo » August 23rd 2013, 11:38am

Hawk wrote:Final score: 80% likelihood of being junk, overpriced or both. And that's with never seeing one in the flesh.


So you're saying there's a chance!

By the way, I first saw this watch on Oceanic Time. As far as I can tell, the watches featured there tend to be better-than-junk, but I'm no WIS. It isn't quite a review, more of a press release and overview, but its right here:

http://oceanictime.blogspot.com/2012/10/molarity-watch-group-deep-diver.html
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10165
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by Hawk » August 23rd 2013, 12:11pm

jonnybardo wrote:
Hawk wrote:Final score: 80% likelihood of being junk, overpriced or both. And that's with never seeing one in the flesh.


So you're saying there's a chance!

By the way, I first saw this watch on Oceanic Time. As far as I can tell, the watches featured there tend to be better-than-junk, but I'm no WIS. It isn't quite a review, more of a press release and overview, but its right here:

http://oceanictime.blogspot.com/2012/10/molarity-watch-group-deep-diver.html

Well, as mentioned I lack the background of a genuine WIS hence the orange lettering adorning my user name.

In the absence of the experience enjoyed by the average WIS here I rely on marketing bullshit to identify a decent buy. It's generally served me well in areas unrelated to watches (I won't go anywhere near cutlery advertised as "surgical grade" either). This has generally steered me clear of anyone using invicter or stuhrling marketing speak. Molarity didn't have to go there but they did so in my assessment they're now "guilty until proven innocent". This is, of course, subject to change in the face of evidence but I'm for sure as hell not going to pay good money to provide myself with evidence - somebody else can go first.

Translating "marketing dweeb dialect" into "English" I'm getting: "glass crystal with luminous hands and generic Asian movement". That doesn't say "400.00" to me. It says "89.95". I would concede that Molarity doesn't ring the chimes like Stuhrling - by the time I'm done translating their mutilated sales language into something understandable it screams "dimestore trinket" at me. invicter, of course, takes that ball and runs for a TD. Next to them, Molarity is a veritable Abraham-Louis Breguet.
Image
User avatar
bbattle
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 1004
Joined: July 11th 2019, 2:51pm
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Molarity

Post by bbattle » October 4th 2019, 11:28am

Molarity is a concentration term. The molarity of a solution is equal to moles of substance A per liter of solvent B. A mole of something is equal to the mass in grams of Avogadro's number of its atoms.

one mole of alcohol (ethanol) weighs 46 grams. If you put one mole of ethanol in a liter of water, you would have a one molar solution of alcohol. Since the density of ethanol is 0.79g/ml, that would be 58.23ml of alcohol per liter. Since a liter is 1000ml, that would be a 5.8% alcohol concentration. 1000ml is equivalent to 2.81 12 ounce cans which would get most football fans maybe an hour into the game.

I'm not spending that kind of money on a hour's worth of ugly watch.

ps: their website was flagged by work IT as a malicious site - access denied.
Post Reply

Return to “Micro-Brands”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest